CGST C.C & C. E-JODHPUR 1 Versus ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1420 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 12-9-2018
Appeal No. E\/51541\/2018-SMC – Final Order No. _52942\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nFor the Appellant : Sh. P. Juneja, DR
\nFor the Respondent : Sh. Kartikey Kulshreshtha, Advocate
\nORDER
\nPer: V. Padmanabhan
\n1. The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 32-33\/2017 dated 29\/01\/2018. The period of dispute is October, 2014 to March, 2015. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of cement and related products. They availed the services of Commission Agents to develop its market and promote sales. They availed the Cenvat Credit of the Service Tax paid by Commission Agents under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Original Authority took a view that the respondent will not be entitled to such Cenvat Credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned ord<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ESTAT, New Delhi Cenvat Credit has been allowed with the following observations by the Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 04 and declared that sales promotion includes services by way of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. In other way, Explanation to Rule 2(l) of Rules says in clear terms that there is no bar on availment of the Cenvat credit on sales promotion service by way of sale of dutiable E\/54289\/2015 E\/52700\/2016 5 goods on commission basis. Further, by inserting the Explanation in the Rule 2(l), it has confirmed the Board Circular and resolved the different views of the High Courts. Taking into circumstances under which the Explanation was inserted in Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 and consequence of the Explanation to extend the benefit to the assessee as per Board Circular, we hold that the Explanation inserted in Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 by Notification No. 2\/2016-CX (N.T.) (supra) should be declaratory in nature and effective retrospectively”. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CGST C.C & C. E-JODHPUR 1 Versus ULTRATECH CEMENT LTDCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 1420 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 12-9-2018Appeal No. E\/51541\/2018-SMC – Final Order No. _52942\/2018Central ExciseMr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Sh. P. Juneja, DR For the Respondent : Sh. Kartikey Kulshreshtha, Advocate ORDER Per: … Continue reading “CGST C.C & C. E-JODHPUR 1 Versus ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14023","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14023"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14023\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “5. We note that the similar dispute came before the Tribunal in case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. & Ors. The Tribunal vide Final Order Nos.56683-56885 dated 28.08.2017 examined the issue along with the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Tribunal observed as below:-
\n “4. With regard to availment of Cenvat credit on the commission paid for sale promotion activities, the CBEC vide Circular No. 943\/4\/2011-CX. Dated 29\/04\/2011 has clarified that Cenvat credit is admissible on the services of the sale of the dutiable goods on commission basis. The said circular was endorsed by the Central E\/54289\/2015 E\/52700\/2016 4 Government vide Notification No. 2\/2016-CE (NT) dated 03\/02\/2016. In the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had not referred to the Circular dated 29\/04\/2011 and also there were divergent views by the Hon<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. By following the earlier order of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue which is rejected<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n